• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Army size ratios should change for each conflict

crazypotato

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 27, 2011
1
4
I have played a lot of the original Red Orchestra. I have always been upset when I played maps which the number of total players allowed are the same for both sides on maps which one team is heavily fortified and the other is not. I believe it would be better if the heavily fortified team had fewer player slots than the assaulting team. I think this would help balance out the levels and add realism of being a defender who an attacker is trying to overwhelm with force.
 
When I started mapping for Ostfront, I really missed this feature. Especially balancing attack/defend maps are really hard, and giving attackers a numerical superiority makes it fun for both sides.

Otherwise it becomes incredibly dull/boring if the defenders have defensive structures like trenches, foxholes etc. Because attackers has to deal with emplacements + same amount of enemies. I doubt many players like Basovka because attacking is a nightmare on that map. I believe that's why Tripwire introduced smokes; when the defenders manage to hold the first wave off, it's basically over for the attacker team.

Another way to balance this is to make it really hard to defend; ie place defender spawns further back, not much defensive places and promote more "run'n gun" type gameplay, just like Danzig.

Anyways, I hope Tripwire looks into this feature. Even though they are not using it ATM, it might be a good creativity tool for the mappers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: triple25mm
Upvote 0
The maps are usually balanced with different reinforcement caps and with different respawn times for each team. But it sure would be interesting to see how uneven teams would play out.

Yup, that pretty much said everything i was going to say :)

But yeah, it would be interesting to create uneven teams, because as much as you can try to balance it out with uneven reinforcement counts and timers, the attackers still must overrun the defensive position, and that's hard to accomplish with even teams, even if you can afford to lose more men than the defenders.

Trying to balance it with the respawn timers basically just means there might be small windows of oppertunity where the attacks outnumber the defenders (because a lot of the defenders are waiting in a longer respawn que), but in a Pub game, it's pretty hard for the attacking team to take advantage of thease short windows of oppertunity, and is probably why such maps where never popular on Pub servers.


So aye, a good idea, and i shall supply the OP with a +1.
 
Upvote 0
The maps are usually balanced with different reinforcement caps and with different respawn times for each team. But it sure would be interesting to see how uneven teams would play out.
See my suggestion in the Rising Storm forums regarding a "holdout" gametype where the teams don't have the same number of players ;)
 
Upvote 0
I can see a problem when (assuming they do) teams switch sides, are some players forced into the the other team to play attackers again to retain the same ratio? Because that would be unfair and (for me atleast) annoying imo. But other than that I like the idea, along with the other settings in place. But I think it should be a server option, not compulsory.
 
Upvote 0